Supplementary memorandum submitted by
Stephen Twigg MP, Minister of State for School Standards
Q138
On 8 December when I gave evidence to the Committee
on the teaching of reading, I promised to write to you with a
fuller response to some of the Committee's questions. These focused
in particular on the OECD's PISA study and on the Department's
Sure Start programme.
On the issue of the PISA study I was asked to
respond on the degree of contact between the DfES and the Office
of National Statistics (ONS), and in particular whether the Department
put pressure on the ONS not to submit the figures for England's
performance in PISA 2003. I am now in a position to reinforce
the answer that I gave at the hearing.
As the Department's contractor for PISA 2000
and 2003, the ONS has had an ongoing and close relationship with
DfES over a number of years. This has included regular project
management meetings and updates on PISA as appropriate to the
stage of the survey. During the fieldwork period there was regular
communication between officials at ONS and DfES.
However, responsibility for running the PISA
2003 study in England lay with the ONS. This means that all data
collected in schools were sent directly to the PISA Consortium.
None of the data collected in schools passed through the Department
and there was no question of DfES officials trying to persuade,
or put pressure on, ONS not to submit these data.
Q142
I was also asked to respond to the question
of whether anyone in the ONS is to be reprimanded or sacked, or
whether there is going to be an inquiry into why we did not meet
these specifications. My understanding, following discussion with
colleagues in the department is that PISA is a voluntary survey
and relies on the co-operation of both schools and pupils. Unlike,
in some countries, where Education Ministries can instruct schools
to take part or can exert such pressure that it is tantamount
to an instruction, the Department cannot force schools in England
to participate. Administering the PISA tests and questionnaires
is not an insignificant undertaking by schools, and the PISA fieldwork
takes place at an important time in the school calendar. The Department
can therefore understand that it is not always a straightforward
decision for schools to participate in PISA, and that it is their
right to refuse if they wish to. We are satisfied that officials
from ONS and the Department did all they could to engage with
schools once the problem with non-participation had been identified.
Q189
I was also asked to respond to the Committee
on the question of the scope of the Sure Start PSA targets. The
SR2002 PSA3 target, which covered 2003-06, did specifically refer
to Sure Start Local programmes that were operational at the beginning
of the period. At the time that the target was agreed Sure Start
was a specific initiative aimed particularly at areas of disadvantage.
Since then Sure Start has expanded and its agenda
now covers England as a whole. In recognition of this, SR2004
PSAl extends the coverage of this target to the whole of England
and also seeks a reduction in inequalities in performance between
the 20% most disadvantaged areas and the rest of the country.
We will use the 2004 Foundation Stage Profile
results, due early in 2005, to assess progress in Sure Start Local
Programme (SSLP) areas and to inform future strategy. We will
also continue, until 2006, to monitor progress in language development
of two year olds and expect to see improvement when the latest
results from the Sure Start Language Measure are confirmed in
January.
I thought you might also find it helpful if
I were to clarify the position on the effectiveness of Sure Start
local programmes, following on from the Committee's reference
to research showing "that 75% of Sure Start is not really
making much difference". This is a misinterpretation of the
National Evaluation of Sure Start published interim findings which
showed that 24% of SSLPs were being more effective than would
have been expected. That is not to say that the remaining programmes
were ineffective. This research showed that SSLP areas were more
than twice as likely to be among the especially well-functioning
areas as the "control" areas.
Finally, the Committee also asked about the
proportion of children not able to be taught in English in the
reception year. As Margaret Hodge's answer to Andrew Turner's
PQ made clear, many children in Foundation Stage settings will
have a home language other than English. Practitioners plan to
meet the needs of all children, including those from diverse linguistic
backgrounds. The statutory Foundation Stage curriculum states
that learning opportunities should be planned to help children
develop their English by, for example, providing a range of opportunities
for children to engage in speaking and listening activities in
English with peers and adults. Although we do not collect statistics
centrally on the numbers of children who are not able to be taught
in English, we would expect all primary schools to deliver teaching
in English, with appropriate home language support offered to
those children who need it.
I hope the Committee finds this further information
helpful as you take forward your enquiry.
12 January 2005
| 
